Schedule Of Inspections question

[Benjjy02]

Im sure this is a
regular question on here but here we go again

If the “Routing of cables in prescribed zones” requires ether a tick or a cross on the Schedule of inspections, for i.e. a CU replacement, but the
routing of the cables is a mystery to the installer, What should be
done?

This is for my NICinspection so I appreciate any help

Thanks
Ben

 

[malcolmsanford]

I would put an n/a in it as your work is concerned with just changing the CU and as nothing to do with how the cables are run

 

[topquark]

There's a sticky on CU changes you should read

Edit: here http://www.electriciansforums.net/e...ctrical-regulations/12971-cu-changes-you.html

 

[Benjjy02]

@ malcolmasanford- Im only a rookie at this, but my understanding is with an EIC only a tick or cross is acceptable.

@ topquak- I wouldnt like to disagree with greater men than me, but iv alway been led to believe once you replace the PD then you are responsible for that
circuit. Do you know where it says “only responsible for work done”?

Thanks for your responses

 

[Guest123]

You are issueing an EIC for the work you have carried out nothing else.

So in the 'extent of installation covered by this certificate' box you would write 'upgrading of CU only' When it then comes to the 'routing of cables in prescribed zones' box on the inspection schedule you would write N/A as you havn't installed and cables only replaced the CU.

 

[telectrix]

OK. say you are replacing a CU. the only way to find out if cables are roted in prescribed zones is :

1. lift floor boards to ensure cables are below 50mm deep, drilled through joists, not notched. 2. use a metal/cable detector on the walls to ensure the cables are vertical and/or horizontal from accessories (no diagonal runs).

suppose that cables run under the bathroom floor which is tiled. are you going to rip up tiles and flooring to determine cable location?

that is where the n/a or n/v comes in. what you can't check, you have to enter as malcolm said. no use ticking a box if you can't verify.

 

[i=p/u]

record all deviations if you put an X

 

[Sintra]

record all deviations if you put an X

There shouldn't be an X on an EIC as you are only certifying the work described in the 'extent of installation covered by this certificate' box. ie your work.

 

[Deleted member 26818]

There shouldn't be an X on an EIC as you are only certifying the work described in the 'extent of installation covered by this certificate' box. ie your work.

In fact 632.4 requires you to rectify any defects or ommissions revealed during inspection and testing before the Certificate is issued.

 

[FAA Greenie]

I'll throw this one in then, I always put a tick in it. I have stated in the EIC that the certificate is for the replacement of the CU only, hence the schedule is applicable to the work I am doing on the CU. Therefore I have routed all the cables that I have dealt with in a prescribed zone. This also applies when I move accessories and the like so long as I have described where I have done so, ie 'kitchen area only'. Any thoughts on that? I'm always open to corrections and other ideas....

 

[ezzzekiel]

I agree with the above
Explained the work carried out and signed that what I have done complies with the rest of the document

 

[Deleted member 26818]

I'll throw this one in then, I always put a tick in it. I have stated in the EIC that the certificate is for the replacement of the CU only, hence the schedule is applicable to the work I am doing on the CU. Therefore I have routed all the cables that I have dealt with in a prescribed zone. This also applies when I move accessories and the like so long as I have described where I have done so, ie 'kitchen area only'. Any thoughts on that? I'm always open to corrections and other ideas....

I would only tick the box, if I had actually installed cables.

 

[JUD]

@ malcolmasanford- Im only a rookie at this, but my understanding is with an EIC only a tick or cross is acceptable.

Who has told you it is acceptable to put a cross on an EIC.

The only time you should be putting a cross in any of the boxes is on a PIR.

 

[telectrix]

if unable to verify something i use N/V rather than N/A.

 

[IQ Electrical]

I'll throw this one in then, I always put a tick in it. I have stated in the EIC that the certificate is for the replacement of the CU only, hence the schedule is applicable to the work I am doing on the CU. Therefore I have routed all the cables that I have dealt with in a prescribed zone. This also applies when I move accessories and the like so long as I have described where I have done so, ie 'kitchen area only'. Any thoughts on that? I'm always open to corrections and other ideas....

Fully agree, once you have completed the 'Details Of The Installation' box then you have limited your liability and anything on the Schedule of Inspections can only relate to your work description.

 

[malcolmsanford]

Sorry guys could someone tell me what a prescribed zone is inside a CU. Unless you are extending the cables outside of the CU and your burying the extended cables then yesI would agree you could tick the box.

If you just removing an old CU and fitting a new then I can't see what zones you are talking about.

 

[Guest123]

Sorry guys could someone tell me what a prescribed zone is inside a CU. Unless you are extending the cables outside of the CU and you bury the extended cables then your I would agree you could tick the box.

If you just removing an old CU and fitting a new then I can't see what zones you are talking about.

I agree.

By ticking this box having simply unscrewed one box from the wall and refixed another, you are confirming that work you havn't actually carried out complies with the regs......makes no sense to me at all.


All IMO.:earmuffs:

 

[Deleted member 26818]

You would in effect be carrying out a PIR on the rest of the installation.

 

[Edd]

If your Changing a CU then you must be taking responsibility for the circuits you reconnect, tecnically a PIR should be carried out on the instalation. its your responsibility to make sure that the circuits being reconected are safe. so a PIR and EIC would be needed.. I usually note on the EIC that the cert covers both therefore I normally put a LIM or N/V in the routing of cables box...

 

[Deleted member 26818]

If your Changing a CU then you must be taking responsibility for the circuits you reconnect, tecnically a PIR should be carried out on the instalation. its your responsibility to make sure that the circuits being reconected are safe. so a PIR and EIC would be needed.. I usually note on the EIC that the cert covers both therefore I normally put a LIM or N/V in the routing of cables box...

It's quite a common misconception that by issuing an EIC, for an addition or alteration, the issuer is taking responsibility for the existing installation.
This has never been the case, and the IET has taken steps to try to disuade people of this misconception.
The notes on the rear of the 16th and the 17th edition EIC model forms both indicate that EICs should only be used for initial certification and are not be used for PIRs.
Due to the number of people it was found were using LIM on EICs, an addition to the notes at the bottom of the 17th edition schedule of inspection model form was made, which states LIM is "applicable for a periodic inspection only."
In both editions, there is a box for comments on the existing installation, and both editions have a Regulation requiring that any defects or ommisions revealed during I&T, be made good before the Certificate is issued.
We now have the 17th 1st amendment, Which has introduced separate schedules for initial certification, and condition reports.
There is no reference to the term LIM in the model form schedule for initial certification. It is now only refered to in the schedule for a EICR.
We still have the note on the rear of the EIC informing us that the EIC is to be used only for initial certification, and not for a Periodic inspection.
We still have the box for comments on the existing installation.
And we still have the requirement not to issue a Certificate untill any defects or omissions revealed during I&T are made good.
By using an EIC to cover both initial and periodic certification, you would not be complying with BS7671.

 

[Edd]

I agree theres a misconseption that issuing an EIC for an addition or alteration does not make you responsible for the whole installation. I was going with the OP about a CU change. If you change a CU the circuits you reconnect Will have to be shown to be safe. You cannot reconect an unsafe circuit, YOU will be liable.
As I said above the only way to cover your self would be to issue a PIR and an EIC.
But when changing a CU and filling in an EIC all the circuits you reconect will be on the cert, any non compliances will then be noted and in the Schedule of inspections when it says routing of the cables,,,,unless you can confirm the circuits you have reconected comply then a N/V should be added.
in my case the computer program only allows LIM N/A a tick or cross,, so in my case i put LIM. and as all the necessary tests have now been carried out a seprate PIR is not issued just noted on the cert.
am I doing this wrong??? Thanks

 

[malcolmsanford]

Sorry Edd you are indeed filling out the SoI for an EIC wrong if you place a LIM in it. And to be a bit pedantic a N/V should also not be placed on it either.

It is really quite clear on page 340 of the BRB that you can place a tick or a N/A for an initial verification


And a tick, cross N/A and a LIM for a PIR.

As Spin as pointed out the new amendment as revamped all the forms and you now have different SoI for initial verification and the EICR.

 

[Edd]

Thanks guys, looks like when changing a CU a seprate PIR and EIC will then need to be issued. just need to talk the clients into it!!

 

[JUD]

I would say that if you're work involves a CU change only then I would put N/A for the routing of cables as it doesn't apply (as in Not Applicable) to the work you are responsible for on the EIC.

 

[Robinson]

I agree theres a misconseption that issuing an EIC for an addition or alteration does not make you responsible for the whole installation. I was going with the OP about a CU change. If you change a CU the circuits you reconnect Will have to be shown to be safe. You cannot reconect an unsafe circuit, YOU will be liable.
As I said above the only way to cover your self would be to issue a PIR and an EIC.
But when changing a CU and filling in an EIC all the circuits you reconect will be on the cert, any non compliances will then be noted and in the Schedule of inspections when it says routing of the cables,,,,unless you can confirm the circuits you have reconected comply then a N/V should be added.
in my case the computer program only allows LIM N/A a tick or cross,, so in my case i put LIM. and as all the necessary tests have now been carried out a seprate PIR is not issued just noted on the cert.
am I doing this wrong??? Thanks

Hi guys been a while . Sorry i not imputed much recent. this thread maybe at its end but still wanted to say I agree with above but what is considered unsafe>? Sounds silly but if you have very low IR readings or a broken ring, or say Shared neutral. As i have had this and where done a CU change. And i be honest i dont carry out a Full PIR or EICR before every CU change. so when faced with a issue such as what you do. ? I noted on my cert a very low IR reading on a Ring (below 1 mega) and no R1+R2 on lighting and my asseser came to see and he said nothing about not allowing that. And really it was a possible problem one that certainly needed further investigation, but he said as long as you noted it. that was a EIC. Surely changing to a RCD board would make it more safe.